chromatic wrote: > On Fri, 2004-05-21 at 09:02, Geoffrey Young wrote: > > >>another thing that is keeping me from 100% right now is the >>classic >> >> my $class = ref $self || $self; >> >>where the only way to satisfy the conditional is to call My::Foo::bar() >>using functional syntax instead of a method syntax. > > > Wouldn't calling that constructor on an existing object satisfy the > conditional?
I don't think so. you have three logical pathways to test: - T - F || T - F || F it's the last one that is "problematic" in typical uses, since the only way to make $self false, given my $self = shift; is to call the class/object method directly as a functional subroutine with no arguments, which probably breaks most uses of the API. still, it's not really about being slave to the green (which is a bad idea) - you might genuinely care about what happens when someone new to your group calls something as a function when it should be a method. or you may have something like Apache::server_root_relative() which can be called as either an object method or a function (in which case the proper pool is retrieved for you). so it's not necessarily something you _don't_ want to test for. but if you're writing tests for a standard OO API you may not want to waste the time excercising conditions that clearly break the OO paradigm of your application. are we OT yet? > Granted, I'd *never* do that in real code, so I prefer to bury that > yucky idiom. I'm merely the test slave at the moment, not the author :) --Geoff
